AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M are both end-of-life mobile graphics processors from 2014, but they occupy completely different performance strata. Benchmark data shows the GTX 970M is decisively faster, delivering roughly 4x the compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, while the R5 M255 trails by margins of 73-75%. The GTX 970M’s average benchmark score of 4628 places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M255’s 4788 average lands at the 28th percentile—a statistical tie in overall standing, but the individual test results reveal a massive gulf in raw capability.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M than the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4,650 for the R5 M255, a difference of 75.5% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is the largest performance gap recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between these two GPUs?

A: The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M features 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s—roughly 3.8 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The GTX 970M’s GM204 chip packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the R5 M255’s Topaz chip has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Both are manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The GTX 970M also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R5 M255 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4,788, while the GTX 970M sits at 4,628. Despite the GTX 970M’s overwhelming wins in individual tests, its average is slightly lower due to the inclusion of several low-scoring Passmark tests.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs, compared to the R5 M255’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. The GTX 970M also has 48 ROPs versus 8 on the R5 M255.

Where Each One Wins

The data provides only two head-to-head benchmark comparisons—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins both outright. In OpenCL, the GTX 970M’s 18,946 score crushes the R5 M255’s 4,650, a 75.5% margin. In Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains decisive: 18,292 versus 4,925, a 73.1% advantage. There is no benchmark category where the AMD Radeon R5 M255 comes out ahead.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 970M also demonstrates strength in DirectX workloads, scoring 5,704 in Passmark G3D and 42 in Passmark DirectX 11. The R5 M255 has no corresponding Passmark scores in the data, so its capabilities in those specific tests cannot be quantified. The GTX 970M’s 2,289 Passmark GPU Compute score further reinforces its compute advantage. For the R5 M255, the only available data points are the two Geekbench scores, both of which show it trailing by more than 70%. In every measurable category, the GTX 970M is the clear winner, making it the obvious choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL, Vulkan, or DirectX.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture using the Topaz chip, part of the Gem System generation within the R5 M200 series. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, belonging to the GeForce 900M generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The GTX 970M’s GM204 die is substantially larger and more complex, measuring 398 mm² versus 125 mm² for the Topaz chip. Transistor counts tell a similar story: 5,200 million on the NVIDIA part versus 1,550 million on the AMD part. Transistor density is comparable—13.1M per mm² for GM204 and 12.4M per mm² for Topaz—indicating both chips use the same process efficiently.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 970M packs 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the R5 M255 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 3.3x advantage in shading units and 3.3x advantage in TMUs directly translates to the GTX 970M’s superior pixel rate of 49.82 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.04 GTexel/s, compared to 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s for the R5 M255. The GTX 970M also delivers 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus 721.9 GFLOPS for the AMD part—a 3.7x difference.

API support also diverges. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M255 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA part is a more modern and capable architecture in every measurable dimension, with the R5 M255 representing a lower-tier entry point in AMD’s mobile lineup.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the data. Clock speeds are close at base—925 MHz for the R5 M255 and 924 MHz for the GTX 970M—but the boost clocks diverge: 940 MHz for AMD versus 1,038 MHz for NVIDIA. Memory clocks show a larger gap: 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the R5 M255 versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 970M.

Memory capacity and type differ substantially. The R5 M255 has 2 GB of DDR3, while the GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5. Bus widths are 128-bit and 192-bit respectively, resulting in memory bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s versus 120.3 GB/s—a 3.8x difference in favor of NVIDIA.

The bus interface also differs: the R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 970M uses MXM-B (3.0), indicating a module form factor. The GTX 970M is listed as an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the R5 M255 has no listed slot width or power connector data. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the GTX 970M, while the R5 M255 has no listed outputs.

Pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance all favor the GTX 970M overwhelmingly: 49.82 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s, 83.04 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s, and 2.657 TFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio (721.9 GFLOPS), while the GTX 970M lists no FP16 data. Both are end-of-life products, with the R5 M255 released on 2014-10-11 and the GTX 970M on 2014-10-06—five days apart.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains exactly two benchmark comparisons, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins both by margins exceeding 70%. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 against the R5 M255’s 4,650, resulting in a deltaPct of -75.5% for the AMD part. This is the larger of the two gaps, reflecting the GTX 970M’s massive advantage in compute throughput—its 2.657 TFLOPS FP32 performance is roughly 3.7 times the R5 M255’s 721.9 GFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the scores are 18,292 for the GTX 970M and 4,925 for the R5 M255, a deltaPct of -73.1%. The slightly smaller gap in Vulkan suggests the R5 M255’s driver or architectural characteristics are relatively less disadvantaged in this API, but the absolute scores remain far apart—the GTX 970M still achieves more than 3.7 times the R5 M255’s result.

The GTX 970M also has a broader benchmark footprint, with additional data points including Passmark DirectX 9 (99), DirectX 10 (28), DirectX 11 (42), DirectX 12 (24), G2D (381), G3D (5704), and GPU Compute (2289). The R5 M255 has no corresponding Passmark scores in the data, so direct comparisons in those tests are impossible. However, the GTX 970M’s Passmark G3D score of 5,704 indicates substantial DirectX performance that the R5 M255 cannot match based on its Geekbench results alone.

The nearest rival data for each GPU provides context. The R5 M255’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791 (deltaPct -0.1%), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4,844 (-1.2%) and AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4,727 (+1.3%). The GTX 970M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621 (+0.2%), AMD Radeon R5 M320 at 4,657 (-0.6%), and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4,657 (-0.6%). These rankings show both GPUs sitting in a similar percentile range despite their huge performance disparity in head-to-head tests.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior GPU in every measurable benchmark category. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins exceeding 73%, and its hardware specifications—1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 6 GB GDDR5, and 120.3 GB/s bandwidth—dwarf the R5 M255’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 2 GB DDR3, and 32.00 GB/s. The GTX 970M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the R5 M255’s DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, offering better forward compatibility.

The R5 M255 is not without its niche. Its 28 nm Topaz chip is smaller and less power-hungry by implication—though the data lists no TDP for either GPU—and its 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die suggest a more modest thermal footprint. For systems requiring a basic mobile GPU for light workloads, the R5 M255’s 4,788 average benchmark score places it in the 28th percentile, statistically equivalent to the GTX 970M’s 27th percentile standing. This parity in overall percentile is misleading, however, as the average score calculation for the GTX 970M includes multiple low-scoring Passmark tests that drag its mean down.

Users seeking maximum performance in OpenCL or Vulkan applications should choose the GTX 970M without hesitation. Its 18,946 OpenCL score and 18,292 Vulkan score are roughly four times the R5 M255’s results, making it the only viable option for compute-intensive tasks. The GTX 970M’s 6 GB GDDR5 memory and 192-bit bus also provide 3.8x the bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. The R5 M255’s 2 GB DDR3 and 128-bit bus limit it to lighter duties, and its lack of Passmark scores in the data suggests limited validation across standard DirectX benchmarks.

For a database-driven recommendation, the data supports the GTX 970M as the clear winner for anyone prioritizing performance. The R5 M255’s only advantages are its smaller die size and lower complexity, neither of which translates to a benchmark win. Both GPUs are end-of-life products, but the GTX 970M remains the one with meaningful performance headroom for legacy applications. The R5 M255 is suitable only for systems where its specific power and size characteristics are required, and even then, its performance is a fraction of the NVIDIA alternative.